Computer Modelling and Analysis of An Existing Pedestrian PDF

INTI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Engineering and Quantity Surveying
COMPUTER MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF AN EXISTING PEDESTRIAN

WALKWAY BRIDGE TRUSS
Tong Chu Chin

Diploma in Civil Engineering
Project Supervisor
MR Cheah Jen Ping
Final Year Project
2020
I declare that this project is entirely my own work except where due references are made
TONG CHU CHIN

10/05/2020
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude and sincere thanks to my
supervisor, Mr Cheah Jen Ping of Department of Civil Engineering, for helping me directly or
indirectly in this project research. I want to express my profound gratitude to his patience,
immense knowledge, careful guidance and continued encouragement in completion of this
research. His guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this report. I cannot
imagine without a better supervisor to conduct my project research.
Secondly, I would like to thank INTI International University for giving me the
opportunity to conduct my own project research before graduation. My sincere thanks also go
to all my friends of INTI UNIVERSITY, for their stimulating discussions, for their suggestions
and encouragement. I also want to thank my friends for providing their valuable insight and
help.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family members, especially my parents for
giving me unconditional support and encouragement to pursue my current study.
Finally, I cannot complete my project research in a smooth and successful way without
support of supervisor, friends and parents. I have no valuable words to express my gratitude,
but my heart is still full of favours received from every person.
iii
ABSTRACT
Pedestrian walkway bridge truss is a rigid structure that make the pedestrians crossing the road
in an easy and safety way. A structure computer software has been used to analyse the bridge
truss quickly and accurately. The bridge trusses are a high construction cost and very heavy
structure. In order to reduce the construction costs and weight of the structure, cross-sections
optimization technology have been used. This project research mainly focuses on the possibility
of material optimizes of the truss member, followed by determine the stresses, internal forces,
deformation and the factor of safety under a various load effect. The INTI International
University pedestrian walkway bridge truss has been chosen and suitable for this project
research because the bridge truss is a warren type made of structural steel with square hollow
section. The cross-section optimization in Square Hollow Section (SHS) greater than the solid
section. The upper chord and lower chord of SHS 120 x 120 x 8 (length x width x thickness),
the diagonals and posts of SHS 100 x 100 x 8 have been used to design the bridge truss and
determine the maximum load capacity. The cross-section optimization reduces the SHS 120 x
120 x 8 to SHS 100 x 100 x 8 and the SHS 100 x 100 x 8 to SHS 90 x 90 x 8. In addition to the
same length and width, the thickness has to reduce from 8 mm to 6.3 mm. Furthermore, the
Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020 have been provided a new cross-section
optimization. For the top chord and bottom chord, SHS 60 x 60 x 3 have been used. The SHS
70 x 70 x 3.6 have been used in the diagonal and post. BS 5950-1-2000 2.5.2 Table 8(C), the
allowable deformation for the bridge truss must less than L/600. The maximum deformation
for the bridge truss in this are 26 mm which less than (22400/600 = 37.33mm). Based on BS
5950-1-2000 4.7.5 Table 24(1), the maximum stresses in the structural steel S275 Grade must
be less than 194 MPa in this section. The maximum normal stresses, 161.54 MPa < 194 MPa.
The demand and capacity ratio of the SHS 60 x 60 x 3 and SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6 are less than 1.0.
The Autodesk optimized section have a deformation that 69% higher than the original section
and maximum stress have 59% higher than the original section. However, the maximum
deformation, maximum stresses, demand and capacity ratio are below the allowable values
from BS 5950-1-2000. Therefore, the optimized section, SHS 60 x 60 x 3 (top and bottom chord)
and SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6 (diagonals and posts) can be used.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
STUDENT DECLARATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT iv
TABLE OF CONTENT v-vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii-x
LIST OF TABLES xi
1 INTRODUCTION 1-4
1.1 Background 1-2
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Objective 3
1.4 Scope of Study 4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6-29
2.1 Background 5-9
2.2 Types of Bridge Truss 9
2.2.1 Pratt Truss 10
2.2.2 Howe Truss 10
2.2.3 Warren Truss 10
2.2.4 K Truss 11
2.2.5 Fink Truss 11-12
2.3 Design Load 12-13
2.3.1 Dead Loads or Static Load 13-14
2.3.2 Live Load or Imposed Load 15-16
v
2.3.3 Wind Load 17-18
2.3.4 Impact Load 19
2.3.5 Factor of Safety 19-20
2.4 Optimization Technology 21
2.4.1 Cross-section Optimization 21-23
2.5 Analysis of Statically Determinate Trusses 24
2.5.1 Method of Joint 24-25
2.5.2 Method of Section 25-26
2.5.3 Zero-Force Members 26
2.6 Summary of Literature Review 27-29
3 METHODOLOGY 30-42
3.1 Introduction 30
3.2 Flow Chart 31
3.3 Program Modelling 32
3.4 Apparatus 32
3.5 Required Measurements of Bridge Truss 33
3.6 Actual Measurements for the Bridge Truss 33-34
3.7 Cross Section of Beam 34-35
3.8 Cross Section for Column 36-37
3.9 Material for the Beam 37
3.10 Assumption for the Design of Bridge Truss 37-38
3.11 Method of Joint 38-39
3.12 Method of Section 39
3.13 Factor of Safety (FoS) 39-40
3.14 Computer Testing Procedure 40
vi
3.14.1 Load Test of SHS 120 x 120 x 120 x 8 and SHS 100 x 40
100 x 8 Steel Sections
3.14.2 Load Test of SHS 100 x 100 x 8 and SHS 90 x 90 x 8 40-41
Steel Sections
3.14.3 Load Test of SHS 100 x 100 x 6.3 and SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3 41
Steel Sections
3.14.4 Load Test of Autodesk Optimized Sections 41
3.15 Summary of Methodology 41-42
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 43-90
4.1 Introduction 43-44
4.2 First Analysis Result of SHS 120 x 120 x 8 and SHS 100 x 100 x 8 44-59
4.3 Second Analysis Result of SHS 100 x 100 x 8 and SHS 90 x 90 x 8 60-68
4.4 Third Analysis Result of SHS 100 x 100 x 6.3 and SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3 69-77
4.5 Fourth Analysis Result of Autodesk Optimized Sections 78-87
4.6 Discussion on First, Second, Third and Fourth Analysis Result 88-90
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEDANTIONS 91-95
5.1 Conclusion 91-94
5.2 Recommendation 94-95
REFERENCES 96-98
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
DESCRIPTION PAGE
Figure 1.1 Failure of Bridge Truss (Jamilur Reza Choudhury and Ariful Hasnat) 2
Figure 2.1 Simple Two-Dimensional (2-D) Truss Structure Construction 6
(Jerome et al., 2012)
Figure 2.2 Simple Three-Dimensional (3-D) Space Truss Construction 6
(Jerome et al., 2012)
Figure 2.3 Compound Trusses (Jerome et al., 2012) 7
Figure 2.4 A Wooden Bridge Truss in Boston (Fanny Griesmer,2012) 8
Figure 2.5 Squire Whipple Iron Bridge Truss. (Tabea Tietz, 2014) 9
Figure 2.6 Eads Bridge (The Maritime Executive, 2020) 9
Figure 2.7 Different types of truss bridge (Akinloye Bukunmi Stephen, 2019) 12
Figure 2.8 Schedule of Unit Masses of Building Materials (BS 648:1964) 14
Figure 2.9 Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed Loads (BS 6399-1:1996) 16
Figure 2.10 Code of Practice for Wind Loads (BS 6399-2:1997) 18
Figure 2.11 Partial Safety Factors (Chanakya Arya, 1994) 20
Figure 2.12 Square Hollow Sections (BS 5950-1:2000) 23
Figure 2.13 Circular Hollow Sections (BS 5950-1:2000) 23
Figure 2.14 Method of Joint (Russell C. Hibbeler, 1999) 25
Figure 2.15 Method of Section (Russell C. Hibbeler, 1999) 26
Figure 2.16 Zero-Force Member (Russell C. Hibbeler, 1999) 26
Figure 2.17 Mass vs depth of section varies. (Krishna et al., 2016) 28
Figure 2.18 Total deformation vs depth of section varies. (Krishna et al., 2016) 28
Figure 2.19 Total deformation vs web thickness of section varies(Krishna et al., 2016) 29
Figure 3.1 Project Flow Chart 31
Figure 3.2 INTI’s Pedestrian Walkway Bridge Truss 32
Figure 3.3 Required Measurements for the bridge truss design 33
Figure 3.4 Part of Bridge Truss 33
Figure 3.5 SHS with 120mm x 120mm x 8mm 35
Figure 3.6 SHS with 100mm x 100mm x 8mm 35
Figure 3.7 Columns Solid Round Steel based on BS 449-2:1969 36
Figure 3.8 Parts of the Columns Design 36
viii
Figure 3.9 Method of Joint 39
Figure 3.10 Method of Section 39
Figure 4.1 Deformation Under Self-Weight of Bridge Truss (1) 48
Figure 4.2 Deformation Under Combination of All Dead Loads and Live Loads 48
of Bridge Truss (1)
Figure 4.3 Stresses Under Self-Weight of Bridge Truss (1) 49
Figure 4.4 Stresses Under Combination of All Dead Loads and Live Loads 49
of Bridge Truss (1)
Figure 4.5 Internal Forces Under Moving Loads at Left Part of Bridge Truss (1) 50
Figure 4.6 Internal Forces Under Moving Load at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (1) 50
Figure 4.7 Deformation Under Moving Load at Left Part of Bridge Truss (1) 51
Figure 4.8 Deformation Under Moving Load at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (1) 51
Figure 4.9 Stresses Under Moving Load at Left Part of Bridge Truss (1) 52
Figure 4.10 Stresses Under Moving Load at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (1) 52
Figure 4.11 Design of the Bridge Truss with Simply Supported 54
Figure 4.12 Internal Forces in Bridge Truss by Autodesk 55
Figure 4.13 Results from Manual Calculation 56
Figure 4.14 Results from Manual Calculation (Continued) 57
Figure 4.15 Example of Some Demand and Capacity Ratio by Autodesk (1) 59
of Bridge Truss (2)
of Bridge Truss (2)
Figure 4.21 Internal Forces Under Moving Loads at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (2) 63
Figure 4.22 Deformation Under Moving Loads at Left Part of Bridge Truss (2) 64
Figure 4.23 Deformation Under Moving Loads at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (2) 64
Figure 4.24 Stresses Under Moving Loads at Left Part of Bridge Truss (2) 65
Figure 4.25 Stresses Under Moving Loads at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (2) 65
Figure 4.27 Deformation Under Self-Weight of the Bridge Truss (3) 70
ix
of Bridge Truss (3)
Figure 4.29 Stresses Under Self Weight of Bridge Truss (3) 71
of Bridge Truss (3)
Figure 4.38 Optimized Steel Section by Autodesk 79
of Bridge Truss (4)
of Bridge Truss (4)
Figure 4.49 Example of Some Demand and Capacity Ratio of Bridge Truss (4) 87
Figure 4.50 Relationship between Deformation and Cross Section of Member 88
Under Combination of All Loads
Figure 4.51 Relationship between Stresses and Cross Section of Member 89
Figure 4.52 Relationship between Maximum Deformation and Cross Section 89
of Member Under Moving Loads
Figure 4.53 Relationship between Maximum Stresses and Cross Section of 90
Member Under Moving Loads
x
LIST OF TABLES
DESCRIPTION PAGE
Table 2.1 Overall Factor of Safety 20

Table 2.2 Dimension and Weight per Unit Length for Different Cross-Section 22
(Rahul et al., 2014)
Table 3.1 Actual Measurements of Bridge Truss 34
Table 3.2 Dimensions of the Column Design 37
Table 4.1 Comparison Between Manual Calculation by Method of Joint and 46
Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020 provided
forces under ULS
Table 4.2 Comparison Between Manual Calculation by Method of Joint and 47
forces under ULS (Continue)
Table 4.3 Comparison between Internal Forces by Method of Joint and 58
forces in Bridge Truss with Simply Supported
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Pedestrian walkway bridge truss is a structure of combined elements such as

long span for transfer the load from a point to a point. For the title, “Computer Modelling and
Analysis of An Existing Pedestrian Walkway Bridge Truss”, this means use the structure
computer software to design an existing pedestrian walkway bridge truss and optimise the
original section of structural steel
According to the research, a considerable amount of research is being conducted

to effectively evaluate the safety of these and other types of bridges. Field testing of bridges
has come to be recognized as a viable means of obtaining realistic estimates of load carrying
capacities and performances of existing bridges. Ideally, this is indeed the most desirable means
to evaluate a bridge, but it is also quite costly. Therefore, the similar designs of bridge trusses
have been designed in the three dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) finite elements by
the computer software to analyse the bridge truss.
Load capacity refers to the maximum demand, stresses or load that may be
imposed on a given system for a long time under normal or other specified conditions. In other
words, it refers to the ability of a system to continue to perform its intended function while
supporting a specific weight. In bridge design, load capacity typically specifically relates to the
maximum demand, stress, or load that can be safely placed on the system without causing
system failure. There are two different loads such as dead loads (Gk) and live loads (Qk) that
are anticipated act on the bridge. Dead load for the pedestrian walkway bridge truss includes
1
the weight of the bridge plus the permanent object that fixed to the bridge such as gates and the
others. All the parts and materials that are used in the construction of bridge also called as dead
loads. For example, beams, cement, foundation, cables, steel or anything else that comprises
the parts of the bridge. A live load is the moving load that the bridge will support. Moving loads
for the bridge are the pedestrians only. For the environment loads such as wind and rainwater
that collected will not be a factor because most of the pedestrian walkway bridge in Malaysia
will not affected by the environmental factor.
Based on the IS, BS, EN, SS standards, there are many different cross section
and shapes of the beams. For example, Circular Hollow Section (CHS), Square Hollow Section
(SHS), Rectangular Hollow Section (RHS), Solid Round Steel (SRS) and others. Different cross
section of beams has different properties and advantages. In this project research, the optimum
cross section and material have been selected by the optimum technology and below the
allowable stresses, deformation, demand and capacity ratio from BS 5950-1:2000.
Lastly the common failure of the bridge truss has been showed as the Figure 1.1.
Therefore, the static analysis method and factor of safety are necessary to determine the stresses,
internal forces and deformation of bridge truss without failure.
Figure 1.1: Failure of Bridge Truss (Jamilur et al., 2015)
2
1.2 Problem Statement
Improper use of structural steel material will increase the construction cost,
weight of structure and others. The optimal design of the bridge structure needs to be checked
to reduce cross section. For example, reduce the thickness, length, width or use different
sections. This will reduce waste of materials. In order to ensure pedestrian safety and reduce
the risk of failure of bridge structures, computer modelling and analysis of pedestrian walkway
bridge trusses at INTI International University are needed to evaluate the factor of safety of the
bridge structures. The factor of safety is the load capacity of the structure exceeds the ability of
the structure to actually support it. This means that the safety factor represents the strength of
the bridge structure. The optimized section also needs to pass the allowable deformation,
stresses, demand and capacity ratio. In order to get more accurate algorithms and answers, the
best choice is to design a similar length, width, column, load, type of truss and material by using
Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020.
1.3 Objective
To achieve a successful project, the objective of the project should be:
1) Evaluate on possibility of material optimizes of the truss member.
2) Determine the stresses, internal forces and deformations of the structures under a
various load effect.
3) Evaluate the factor of safety of the existing pedestrian walkway truss bridge.
3
1.4 Scope of the study
This study will have a picture of INTI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

pedestrian walkway bridge truss as a reference. The aspects will be covered in this study are as
the type of the load, the type of the truss and the material for build the bridge. In order to ensure
the safety of the pedestrians, attention needs to be paid when the bridge that designed in the
computer software changed. The moving loads of the pedestrian that act in the INTI’s bridge
truss also need to observe for using in the computer program for Autodesk Robot Structural
Analysis 2020.
The aspects covered in this study:
1) Calculate the member forces of each of the truss members under various load effect.
2) Analyse the factor of safety of the bridge structure to determine the strength of the
structure.
3) Examine the best solution by reducing the thickness, length, width or using different
section to optimise the cross section.
4) Investigate the methods of joints and method of sections equations.
5) Do research and get the information of structural analysis.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Background
A truss is a structural element composed of a stable arrangement of slender

interconnecting rods. The truss usually constructed as triangular areas to produce an efficient,
long-span, lightweight, reduced deflection, opportunity to support large loads and load-bearing
components. It is assumed that the truss members are only subjected to axial loads, such as
tension or compression. This is because the truss members are subject to direct stress. The
trusses are a symbol of building balance and displacement. Trusses play a key role in the
construction of bridges, railway station roofs, towers, crane trusses, stadium trusses and other
buildings.
According to the research, Andrea Palladio (1518-1580) an Italian architect,

gave a description of truss structures with a series of correct triangular patterns in carrying loads.
(Ferments et al., 2018).
The trusses consist of various types and different truss structures to achieve the
different function:
1. Simple two-dimensional (2-D) truss structures

2. Simple three-dimensional (3-D) space trusses
3. Compound trusses
5
A simple two-dimensional (2-D) truss structure combines one-dimensional
linear members to create a triangular pattern. The truss structure starts with triangular elements
and a pair of members are added to form additional triangular elements until the complete
structure is assembled.
Figure 2.1: Simple Two-Dimensional (2-D) Truss Structure Construction (Jerome et al., 2012)
A simple three-dimensional (3-D) space truss is a combination of tetrahedral

elements. The space truss starts with a tetrahedral element and then adds three linear elements
to form another tetrahedral element.
Figure 2.2: Simple Three-Dimensional (3-D) Space Truss Construction (Jerome et al., 2012)
Composite trusses use simple trusses as "members", connected by additional

joints and bars.
6
Figure 2.3: Compound Trusses (Jerome et al., 2012)
A bridge is a connecting structure that combines elements such as long spans,

beams, stringers, etc. to bond between the seas on both shores and a part of the two countries
in discontinuous places. In addition, the bridge used to transfer loads from a point to point and
is used to pass through obstacles that affect people. While a truss is a set of structures that
connect a set of beams to form a triangular element that is loaded in a purely tension or
compression without bending and shear forces. The truss also contains two-forces members
only. From the definition of the 'bridge' and 'truss', the bridge truss defines as the bridge whose
load-bearing superstructure is composed of a truss. The truss bridge is one of the oldest types
of modern bridges. The design of the truss bridge uses Newton's laws of motion and
incorporates pin joints. Construction of the truss bridge begins with a detailed soil analysis to
determine suitability for the bridge and traffic load. Truss bridges are designed to place roads
at the bottom of the truss or at the top of the truss.
According to the book, the first invention of the truss structure was in early
Egyptian boats built between 3100 and 2700 BC. The trusses used by the Egyptian boat builders
were formed by tying members to vines to form the sides and attached to the outer hull to these
structures (Jerome et al., 2012).
7
The first truss bridge was first invented in the United States in the late 1700s and
early 1800s. Truss bridges are built of wood or timber. Andrea Palladio, the 16th-century Italian
architect, was the founder of using wooden trusses in bridge designs, including the basic
Kingpost and Queenpost designs During this time, wooden bridges are not expensive, but they
have low durability due to the short life expectancy of the wood.
Figure 2.4: A Wooden Bridge Truss in Boston (Fanny Griesmer,2012)
Ironmaking technology in bridge truss design was invented in the late 1700s.
First the wrought iron was used as the tension elements of the bridge, while the wood for the
compression elements. Then, the cast iron was replaced the wood of the bridge elements for
improvement. The USA civil engineer, Squire Whipple was the first inventor of all iron
bridge trusses.
Between 1850 and 1870, improved iron called steels were designed and
invented for bridge trusses. American civil engineer James Buchanan Eads was the first
inventor of the steel bridge truss, called Eads Bridge. Steel is stronger than cast iron and more
ductile than wrought iron. Therefore, steel replaced iron as the material for bridge trusses.
8
Figure 2.5: Squire Whipple Iron Bridge Truss. (Tabea Tietz, 2014)
Figure 2.6: Eads Bridge (The Maritime Executive, 2020)
2.2 Types of Bridge Trusses
Bridge Trusses can be of different types, such as Allen truss, Pratt truss, Howe
truss, Warren truss, etc., or different materials such as steel, reinforced concrete, prestressed
concrete, wood, etc. Different types of truss bridges have different benefits. For example, the
benefits in terms of cost, maximum load that can be performed, simple or complex design. The
four most basic types in truss bridge design are Warren truss, Pratt truss, Howe truss and K
truss. Each support of the trusses is slightly different in the way it distributes compression and
tension.
9
2.2.1 Pratt Truss
The famous New England railway engineers, Caleb and Thomas Pratt invented
Pratt truss when they applied for a patent in 1844. The truss is designed with vertical members,
the diagonal beams are usually parallel and slope outward the centre of the bridge. The diagonal
of a Pratt truss can support tension forces, while the vertical members can support compression
forces. The design of the Pratt truss is the opposite of Howe Truss.
2.2.2 Howe Truss
An American architect, William Howe invented his new truss design in 1840
and extended the patent through design improvements in 1850. For the design of the Howe truss,
the diagonal beams are inclined toward the centre of the bridge, while the diagonal beams of
the Pratt truss are inclined toward the centre of the bridge. Previously, the diagonals of Pratt
trusses were used to support tension forces, while vertical members were used for compression
forces. For Howe trusses, as opposed to Pratt trusses, diagonal beams become support
compression forces and vertical members become support tension forces.
2.2.3 Warren Truss
In 1848, two well-known American English engineers James Warren and

Willoughby Monzani invented the most popular and still used iron truss bridge design until
now. Its design consists of many isosceles triangles or equilateral triangles to separate the load
onto each beam on the bridge. There are two types of Warren trusses, such as non-vertical
Warren trusses and vertical Warren trusses. Vertical Warren trusses support the top chords and
deck of the structure.
10
2.2.4 K Truss
Phelps Johnson, president of Dominion Bridge, Montreal, Quebec in Canada,

invented K-truss in 1920. The idea of K truss design comes from Pratt truss. K truss is also
known as a complex version of Pratt Truss. Therefore, it is not popular worldwide. The design
idea of K truss is to break the diagonal members into smaller lengths to improve their buckling
resistance. This is because the vertical member is subjected to a compression load. Therefore,
the shorter the length of the member, the greater the buckling resistance.
2.2.5 Fink Truss
An American railway engineer, Albert Fink invented the Fink truss in 1852. The
Fink truss design consists of multiple diagonal members placed at the same angle from the top
of the end post down. These diagonal members reach the bottom of each vertical member with
the longest diagonal towards the central vertical member. This shows the complexity of the
Fink truss design. Fink trusses include Double Fink type and Fan truss type. The Double Fink
design repeats the pattern twice on either side. The type of Fan truss is different from the sector
"fan out" at the bottom seams to add vertical members.
11
Figure 2.7: Different types of truss bridge (Akinloye Bukunmi Stephen, 2019)
2.3 Design Load
The design load is the maximum number of system designs to handle or the
maximum number of systems that can be produced. A load is an external force acting on a
structure. Stress is an internal force that resists stress. Depending on how the load is applied,
they can cause deformation of the structure and its components, for example, tensile forces tend
to stretch, compressive forces tend to squeeze together, torsional forces tend to distort, and
shear forces tend to slide part of the structure. To prevent building failure, a safety factor (FoS)
is required.
There are three basic types of loads acting on structures, such as dead, live, and
wind loads. For each type of load, there will be characteristics and design values. The designer
will have to determine the specific combination of loads that may have the most adverse effect
on the structure in terms of bending moments, shear forces and deflections.
12
According to the book, the design loading for a structure is often specified in
codes such as general buildings codes and design codes. The General Building Code specifies
the minimum design loads required by government agencies and minimum standards for
buildings. Design Code provides detailed technical standards and are used to establish
requirements for actual structural design. (Russell C. Hibbeler, 1999)
2.3.1 Dead Load or Static Load
Dead loads, also known as permanent or static loads, are the loads that remain
relatively constant over time and are included. For example, the weight of the structural
elements of a building such as beams, walls, roofs and structural floor components. Dead loads
may also include permanent non-structural partitions, fixed fixtures, finishes and even built-in
cabinets.
The characteristic dead load can be estimated using the building material weight
tables given in BS 648 or from the manufacturer's literature. The symbols 𝐺𝑘 and 𝑔𝑘 is usually
used to represent the total and uniformly distributed characteristic static loads respectively.
The dead load can be calculated by evaluating the weight of a given material and
its volume. This means that theoretically, it should be possible to calculate the dead load with
higher accuracy. However, structural engineers sometimes conservatively estimate that the
acceptable deflection is minimized, that the tolerance range is allowed, and that it is allowed to
change over time. Therefore, the design static load usually exceeds the actual load.
13
Figure 2.8: Schedule of Unit Masses of Building Materials (BS 648:1964)
14
2.3.2 Live Load or Imposed Load
Live loads, also called imposed loads or variable actions, may change over time
and are usually caused by the occupation of the structure. Typical live loads may include people,
the role of wind in heights, the weight of furniture, vehicles, books in libraries, etc. The moving
loads are the vehicles and the pedestrians. Wind and live loads are sometimes considered
separately as environmental loads. This is because live load tends to be more variable the dead
load, it is more difficult to predict.
According to British Standard, typical characteristic loads are provided for

different types of structures, such as footbridges for moving pedestrians, houses, educational
institutions, hospitals, and parts with the same structure, like balconies, corridors, and
bathrooms. (BS 6399-1:1996)
The symbols 𝑄𝑘 and 𝑞𝑘 are represent the live load. Live load can be expressed
as a uniformly distributed load (UDL) or as a load acting on a concentrated area (point load). It
may eventually be included in the calculation of gravity loads.
15
Figure 2.9: Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed Loads (BS 6399-1:1996)
16
2.3.3 Wind Load
Wind loads can be applied through the movement of air relative to buildings and
the analysis is based on an understanding of weather, aerodynamics, and buildings. For small,
large, and low-rise buildings, wind loads may not be a big deal, but wind loads become more
important with height, use of lighter materials, and shapes that affect air circulation (usually
roof forms). If the building's own weight is not sufficient to withstand wind loads, other
structures and fixtures may be required.
The design wind speed of a building is usually determined from historical

records using extreme value theory predict abnormal wind speeds that may occur in the future.
Special effects that may need to be considered may include angular or jet flow at the corners of
buildings, vortex shedding behind buildings, and through-flows or channel jets in building
passages .The gap between them is small.
Wind pressure can either increase other gravitational forces acting on the
structure or apply suction or negative pressure to the structure equally well. In certain cases, the
latter is likely to lead to critical conditions and must be considered in the design.
Wind loads are important in the design of masonry walls but not very important
in the bridge design.
According to British Standards, there is a typical wind load acting on the

structure. (BS 6399-2:1997)
17
Figure 2.10: Code of Practice for Wind Loads (BS 6399-2:1997)
18
2.3.4 Impact Load
The impact load on the bridge is caused by the sudden load caused by the vehicle
driving on the bridge. As the wheels move, the active load periodically changes from one wheel
to another, which can cause impact loads on the bridge.
To consider the impact load of the bridge, an impact factor was used. The impact
factor is a multiplier that depends on many factors, such as the weight of the vehicle, the bridge's
span, and the speed of the vehicle
2.3.5 Factor of Safety
In the design of bridges, it is necessary to know the safety factor (SF) or factor
of safety (FoS). It describes the carrying capacity of any design component. How much stronger
the system is than expected or expected. The safety factor usually refers to the actual bearing
capacity of the structure or component and the margin of safety requirements for the structure
or component according to regulations, laws or design requirements.
19
Table 2.1: Overall Factor of Safety
Equipment Factor of Safety (FoS)
Aircraft components 1.5-2.5
Bolts 8.5
Cast-iron wheels 20
Engine components 6-8
Heavy duty shafting 10-12
Lifting equipment 8-9
Turbine components-static 6-8
Turbine components-rotating 2-3
Spring, large heavy duty 4.5
Structural steelwork in buildings 4-6
Structural steelwork in bridges 5-7
Partial safety factors are coefficients that can be applied to individual input
variables in a design equation to give a given target reliability without performing a probability
calculation. The design load is obtained by multiplying the characteristic load by a partial load
safety factor. The value of 1 depends on several factors, including the limit state considered,
such as the limit state and usable state, the accuracy of the predicted load, and the specific
combination of loads that will have the worst effect on the structure in terms of bending
moments, shear force and deflection.
Figure 2.11: Partial Safety Factors (Chanakya Arya, 1994)
20
2.4 Optimization Technology
Optimization technology plays an important role in structural design, and its

purpose is to find the best solution from which designers or decision makers can get the most
benefits. There may be a large number of feasible designs but consider the resources and choose
the best solution. The best design can be the lowest cost, lowest weight or highest performance,
or a combination of these.
The existence of optimization methods goes back to the days of Newton,

Lagrange, and Cauchy. In the broadest sense, optimization can be used to solve any engineering
problem, such as minimum weight design of aircraft and aerospace structures, optimal design
of connecting rods, cams, gears and other mechanical components, minimum weight design of
seismic structures, etc.
The optimization techniques in the structural engineering literature are generally

divided into two categories, such as cross-section optimization and material optimization.
2.4.1 Cross-section Optimization
Cross-section optimization is the most studied of these two techniques. Cross-

section optimization can find the best beam shape, whether it is the mass or stiffness, they can
withstand a given set of loads. The choice of the beam section is very important in the design
of the portable pedestrian bridge module. Among the six different cross-sections of the beam
such as circular, rectangular and square with solid and hollow, the cross-section with the least
deformation under load was selected as the module for the portable footbridge. Beams are
actually three-dimensional objects whose main function is to support lateral loads.
In addition, cross-section optimization is also called size optimization. Structural

parameters, called design variables that are changed during the optimization process are
21
properties that affect the cross-sectional area of the beam. For example, in the common case of
tubular elements, the radius, dimensions and thickness of each tube. Therefore, different
dimensions of beams have different advantages.
Table 2.2:Dimension and Weight per Unit Length for Different Cross-Section (Rahul et al.,
2014)
Cross-section Structural Titanium Aluminium Dimension
Steel(kg/m) alloy(kg/m) alloy(kg/m) (mm)
Solid Circular 25.108 14.437 8.692 64mm dia

Hollow Circular 5.302 3.049 1.835 64mm dia x
3mm Thickness
Solid Square 19.624 11.283 6.793 50mm x 50mm

Hollow Square 4.284 2.463 1.483 50mm x 50mm
x 3mm
Thickness
Solid 18.842 10.834 6.523 60mm x 40mm

Rectangular
Hollow 4.230 2.432 1.463 60mm x 40mm

Rectangular x 3mm
Thickness
22
Figure 2.12: Square Hollow Sections (BS 5950-1:2000)
Figure 2.13: Circular Hollow Sections (BS 5950-1:2000)
23
2.5 Analysis of Statically Determinate Trusses
The analysis of statically determinate trusses allows only statically determinate

trusses to be solved. These analyses allow the internal forces and stresses in each truss member
to be resolved. Relations in elastic theory are used to determine deformed or statically
indeterminate structures. Analytical, graphical and computational methods are the solutions for
analysis.
According to the article, there are two most important analysis methods for
statically determined truss methods, such as the method of joints and method of sections. (Pavol
et al., 2016).
2.5.1 Method of Joints
The method of joints is used to determine the bar forces of each of the truss
members by analysis of the free-body diagram of the joints. The method of joints constitutes a
concurrent force system because all forces acting at a joint pass through the pin. It is necessary
to draw each joint’s free body diagram before applying the equilibrium equations when using
the method of joints.
According to the book, the method of joints always assumes the unknown
member forces acting on the joint’s free-body diagram to be in tension or “pulling” on the pin.
If it is done, then numerical solution of the equilibrium equations will yield positive scalars for
members in tension and negative scalars for members in compression. (Russell C. Hibbeler,
1999)
24
Figure 2.14: Method of Joint (Russell C. Hibbeler, 1999)
2.5.2 Method of Sections
The method of sections is used to determine the stable truss by draw an

imaginary cut section. Thus, the cut section divides the truss into two separate parts. If a small
number of member forces are to be found, the section method provides the most direct way to
obtain the member forces.
The entire truss must be in equilibrium, and each of the two sections must also
be in equilibrium. As a result, three equilibrium equations can be applied to any of these two
parts to determine the member forces at the "cut section".
According to the book, the method of sections always assumes that the unknown
member forces at the cut section are in tension or “pulling” on the member. By doing this, the
numerical solution of the equilibrium equations will yield positive scalars for members in
tension and negative scalars for members in compression. (Russell C. Hibbeler, 1999)
25
Figure 2.15: Method of Section (Russell C. Hibbeler, 1999)
2.5.3 Zero-Force Members.
The members in which are zero forces called zero members. When identifying
members that do not support loads, the method of joints will be simplified. Even if these forces
are not loaded, the stability of the truss must be ensured, and support provided when the applied
load changes.
According to the book, if only two members form a truss joint and no external
load or support reaction is applied to the joint, the members must be zero force members.
(Russell C. Hibbeler, 1999)
Figure 2.16: Zero-Force Member (Russell C. Hibbeler, 1999)
26
2.6 Summary of Literature Review
According to the research, changing the web thickness, depth and fillet of radius
of cross-section will affected the mass, deformation and others. (Krishna et al., 2016)
With the results of the mass of the section increases linearly as the depth of the
section increases. The deformation also decreases when the depth of section increase. The
below results were obtained with a section of flange width 140 mm. All other parameters were
kept constant and depth is varied from 100 mm to 650 mm. Important observations can be seen
with the graph. Further increase in depth results in improving negligible performance of the
beam. In the performance graph, it can be observed that the limit of this depth is around 300
mm, which is approximately double the width of the section.
If a web thickness of the section is increased mass of the section increases

linearly. The deformation also decreases when the section increase. In the graphs, it can be
observed that till a certain value, the performance of the beam increases rapidly as total
deformation reduces and safety factor also increases with high gradient of the graph. In this
case after around 8 mm of web thickness, increasing the web thickness gives negligible
increment in the performance of the section. So, suitably selecting web thickness optimizes the
section for maximum performance.
Increasing radius of the fillet increases the mass of the section in a curved path
with the increasing gradients and with the same proportion, it improves the performance of the
section.
27
Figure 2.17: Mass vs depth of section varies. (Krishna et al., 2016)
Figure 2.18: Total deformation vs depth of section varies. (Krishna et al., 2016)
28
Figure 2.19: Total deformation vs web thickness of section varies. (Krishna et al., 2016)
According to the research, the results obtained, the optimization of cross-section

of beam will increase the deformation but reduction in weight of structure. (Krishna et al., 2016).
This have been proved that the reduction in cross-section of beam will increase the deformation
and stresses under various load effect in this project research.
29
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
Nowadays, computer programs could be used to analyse structures quickly and

accurately, but static analysis method needed to be prepared to ensure there was not a failure
done by the computer programs with the factor of safety. The static analysis methods, such as
method of joints and method of sections determined the internal forces, stresses and
deformations of each of the members. Computer modelling and analysis tests of bridge trusses
were a common computer test used to analyse the maximum loads that different trusses in
different cross sections or sizes could withstood in the computer program. Previously, literature
reviews had discussed the section optimization that included the cross sections and sizes of the
beam and the material optimization were the most important optimization technology. As a
result, the warren truss made of steel in hollow section could optimized to reduce the resources
and cost in a more durable, strong and simple design. The computer programs needed to be
used to study the loads, such as dead loads (Gk) and live loads (Qk) that could be withstood by
the original beam cross sections with original materials and beam with cross-section
optimization. Therefore, this research provided a new type of beam with new cross sections,
sizes that gained many advantages.
30
3.2 Flow Chart
Introduction to Research
Literature Review
Methodology
Computer Modelling and

Analysis
Results
Conclusion
Writing Final Report
Figure 3.1: Project Flow Chart
31
3.3 Program Modelling
The INTI's existing pedestrian walkway bridge truss was chosen because the
truss was a warren type made of structural steel with square hollow section. Therefore, it was
suitable for this research.
The design of the INTI's pedestrian walkway bridge truss was modelled and
analysed in a computer program, called Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis. The size of the
walkway bridge truss was 1:1 in the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020 to
ensure the design met the factor of safety and made it easier to optimize the cross-section.
Therefore, the theory of the literature review could be proved to be correct by the beam with
hollow section that made by steel could optimized.to gain more advantages.
Figure 3.2: INTI’s Pedestrian Walkway Bridge Truss
3.4 Apparatus
Only measuring tape was used in this project to measure the actual length of the
INTI’s pedestrian walkway bridge truss.
32
3.5 Required Measurements of The Bridge Truss
The required measurements of the bridge truss for the Autodesk Robot Structural
Analysis are shown as Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.3: Required Measurements for the bridge truss design
3.6 Actual Measurements for The Bridge Truss
Each parts of the truss are shown as Figure 3.3 and the actual measurements 1:1
for the bridge truss design in the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis are shown as Table 3.1.
Figure 3.4: Part of the Bridge Truss
33
Table 3.1: Actual Measurements of Bridge Truss
Part Length (m) Height (m) Number of Span Width Degree (°)
Fields (m)
1 18.08 2.54 8 3.95 5

2 22.4 2.54 10 3.95 0
3 18 2.54 8 3.95 -5
4 21.1 2.54 10 3.95 -5
5 4.86 2.54 2 3.95 -5
3.7 Cross Section of Beam
The Square Hollow Section (SHS) in hot-finished was selected for the design of
the bridge truss in the computer programme. This was because it was the same as the INTI’s
pedestrian’s walkway bridge truss. The SHS comes in many dimensions and thickness. The
cross section of beam for INTI’s bridge truss was 120mm x 120mm x 8mm for the upper chord
and lower chord. For the diagonal and posts, the dimensions were 100mm x 100mm x 8mm.
34
Figure 3.5: SHS with 120mm x 120mm x 8mm
Figure 3.6: SHS with 100mm x 100mm x 8mm
35
3.8 Cross Section for Column
There were two types of columns used in the columns design of the INTI’s
pedestrian walkway bridge truss. For example, Columns Solid Round Steel and RC Columns
that made of the concrete. As shown in the Figure 3.6, the Columns Solid Round Steel came in
many different dimensions based on the BS 449-2: 1969, ‘The Use of Structural Steel in
Building’. The parts and dimensions of the columns design in the computer programme were
shown in the Figure 3.7 and Table 3.2. There are support reaction underneath the column.
Figure 3.7: Columns Solid Round Steel based on BS 449-2:1969
Figure 3.8: Parts of the Columns Design
36
Table 3.2: Dimensions of the Columns Design
Parts Materials Column Types Dimensions
1 Steel Columns Solid 300mm dia
Round Steel
Round Steel
Round Steel
Round Steel
5 Concrete RC column 635mm (length)
267mm (width)
3.9 Material for the Beam
The different types of materials for the beams had different properties. For the
bridge design, the materials of good quality, cost-effectiveness and economy would be used. In
this research, the structural steel was used to design the bridge truss in the computer programme.
The beam of INTI’s pedestrian’s walkway bridge truss was made by structural steel.
3.10 Assumption for the Design of Bridge Truss
The assumptions usually related to the Factor of Safety (FoS), static analysis
methods, optimization technology, cumulative use of bridge over time, type of bridge use and
the other details. The assumptions in this research were as follows.
1. All the length from a member to another member in the part are the same.
2. Panels with RC floor reinforcement that made of concrete and 80mm thickness.
3. The bridge inclination is 5° .
4. 8mm for the steel section thickness.
5. 5m for the height of the columns.
37
6. Dead loads for the roof, light and fence of the INTI’s bridge truss were 0.1 kN/m2 and
0.25 kN/m2 .
7. Live loads for the moving pedestrians were 4.0 kN/m2 .
3.11 Method of Joint
There are only two static equations, as shown in equation (3.1) and equation
(3.2).
∑Fx = 0
(3.1)
∑Fy = 0 (3.2)
Where, ∑Fx = total forces in x direction
∑Fy = total forces in y direction
The equilibrium equation (3.3) is writing out to determine the bar forces. Then,
go to the next node and study its equilibrium by using evaluated forces from the previous node
then go to the next node and so on. This analyst is free to assume either in tension or
compression.
∑Fx = 0, ∑Fy = 0 and ∑M = 0 (3.3)
Where, ∑M = total moment
38
Figure 3.9: Method of Joints
3.12 Method of Sections
The parts must be equilibrium if the truss is equilibrium, as shown in equation

(3.3).
Figure 3.10: Method of Sections
3.13 Factor of Safety (FoS)
The factor of safety must be designed in the INTI’s pedestrian’s walkway

bridge truss. This was because the factor of safety ensures that no failure occur during the
design. The equation of factor of safety shown as equation (3.4)
39
Factor of Safety (FoS) = 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk
(3.4)
Where, Gk = dead loads or static loads
Qk = live loads or imposed loads
3.14 Computer Testing Procedure
There were numerous computers testing procedures in the Autodesk Robot

Structural Analysis Professional 2020 to achieve the objective of this research.
3.14.1 Load Test of SHS 120 x 120 x 8 and SHS 100 x 100 x 8 Steel Beams
The original cross sections of the INTI’s bridge truss were the SHS 120 x 120 x
8 for the upper chords and lower chords. For the diagonals and posts, the beams were SHS 100
x 100 x 8. Firstly, the bridge truss design in the computer programme was same as the original
size of the bridge, cross sections of the beams with steel materials. A load test could be tested
in the bridge truss. Results and data such as the stresses, internal forces, deformations and
demand/capacity ratio of steel structure member of the bridge truss was recorded. A new cross
section of dimension was provided to optimize the truss members.
3.14.2 Load Test of SHS 100 x 100 x 8 and SHS 90 x 90 x 8 Steel Beams
A new bridge truss with new cross sections of SHS 100 x 100 x 8 in upper chord
and lower chord were used for the optimization technology. The SHS 90 x 90 x 8 was used in
the diagonals and posts of the bridge truss. The load test was used to determine whether the
40
new cross sections of bridge truss could be withstood the loads. Then, a new cross section of
thickness was provided.
3.14.3 Load Test of SHS 100 x 100 x 6.3 and SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3 Steel Beams
The upper chords and lower chords were used the SHS 100 x 100 x 6.3. The
diagonals and posts were used the SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3. The 8mm thickness of steel bars were
reduced to 6.3mm to optimize the cross sections of the beams. Lastly, a new bridge truss with
different material was provided.
3.14.4 Load Test of Autodesk Optimized Section
All the structural steel section members were optimized by the Autodesk Robot
Structural Analysis Professional 2020. The optimization technology that provide from the
Autodesk have a cost benefits such as reduce material and reduce construction cost. The
optimized section that provided by the Autodesk also meets all the safety conditions from the
BS 5950-1:2000. For the top chord and bottom chord, SHS 60 x 60 x 3 have been used. The
SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6 have been used in the diagonal and post.
3.15 Summary of Methodology
There were many cross sections and materials for the truss members. Choose the
right optimization ways could be optimize the cross sections and materials of the truss members.
Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020 performed multiple cross sections and
materials to determine the optimization technology for the bridge truss. From the previous
literature review, the reduction of cross-section in hollow section was used in the optimization
41
technology. It could be saw from the methodology, the shape of the beams unchanged, but the
cross sections had been optimized to achieve the objective.
42
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the results and data will be shown for the computer analysis of
the bridge truss such as the internal forces, stresses and deformation under various load effect
and moving load of the pedestrians for different cross section or size of the steel truss. The
investigation of demand and capacity ratio of the steel structure also need to be checked for
ensure the safety of steel structure and prevent failure. The demand and capacity ratio of steel
structure must be less than 1.0 to prevent any failure of the truss member. These inspection
limit of the bridge truss can ensure that no failure occur and provide good discussion to achieve
the objectives of this project.
For the first analysis result of the bridge truss, the cross sections are designed as
Square Hollow Section with 120mm x 120mm x 8mm (SHS 120 x 120 x 8) for top chord and
bottom chord; SHS 100 x 100 x 8 for diagonal and posts. These cross sections have been used
to do an analysis on the internal forces, deformation and stresses. The size of the steel truss is
the original size of the INTI pedestrian’s walkway bridge truss. The analysis provided is the
comparison of the manual calculation of the internal forces by the method of joint and Autodesk
Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020 provided forces. In the BS 5950-1-2000, the
allowable deformation of bridge truss must be less than L/600. The allowable deformation in
the BS code ensure that no massive deformation occur in bridge and prevent failure. In the BS
After done all the analysis, the demand and capacity ratio must be checked to ensure safety for
SHS 120 x 120 x 8 steel.
43
The second analysis of the bridge truss is designed by the SHS 100 x 100 x 8
steel truss for top chord and bottom chord; SHS 90 x 90 x 8 for diagonal and post. The size or
cross section of the steel truss have been optimized by us to achieve the optimization objectives
in this project. The analysis of this bridge truss also includes the internal forces, stresses and
deformation. The checking for demand and capacity ratio of the steel truss also taken to prevent
failure of SHS 100 x 100 x 8 and SHS 90 x 90 x 8.
In the third analysis, the thickness of the steel members has been optimized by
us from 8mm to 6.3mm for optimization technology. The SHS 100 x 100 x 6.3 is designed as
top chord and bottom chord. The SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3 is designed as diagonal and post. The same
analysis is taken to this bridge truss such as internal forces, deformation and stresses. The
demand and capacity ratio also need to be checked.
In the last analysis, fourth analysis, optimization steel section will be provided
by the Autodesk Structural Analysis Professional 2020. For the top chord and bottom chord,
SHS 60 x 60 x 3 have been used. The SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6 have been used in the diagonal and
post. Apply same analysis to this optimized section bridge truss by Autodesk to check whether
the section can be used.
4.2 First Analysis Result of SHS 120 x 120 x 8 and SHS 100 x 100 x 8
In this first analysis result, the bridge truss is designed by the SHS truss member.
For the top chord and bottom chord, the SHS 120 x 120 x 8 have been used. For the diagonal
and post, the SHS 100 x 100 x 8 have been used. The analysis for the internal forces has based
on the combination of all dead loads and live loads with safety factor of 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk . The
combination of the loads is under the Ultimate Limit State (ULS). The limit state is the state of
a structure which represents the acceptable limit of an aspect of structural behaviour. The
deformation and the normal stress of the steel member also have been analysed.
44
Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 represent the comparison of the manual calculation by
method of joint and Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020 provided forces
under ULS. Figure 4.1 and 4.2 shown the deformation under the self-weight of the bridge truss
and combination of all dead loads and live loads. For example, the self-weight of bridge truss
and slab self-weight as the dead loads. Then, the roof loadings, light loadings and fence loadings
as live loads. Figure 4.3 and 4.4 shown the stresses under combination of all dead loads and
live loads. Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 shown the internal forces under the moving load such as
the pedestrians. Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8 shown the deformation under the moving load. Figure
4.9 and Figure 4.10 shown the stresses under moving load.
45
Table 4.1: Comparison Between Manual Calculation by Method of Joint and Autodesk Robot
Structural Analysis Professional 2020 provided forces under ULS
Bar Manual Autodesk Bar Number Manual Autodesk

Number Calculation (kN) Calculation (kN)
(kN) (kN)
108 15.3(C) 28.49(C) 453 126.44(T) 18.64(C)
426 0 6.39(T) 16 0 16.27(C)
434 0 24.59(C) 454 126.44(T) 18.65(C)
100 0 39.69(T) 6 55.41(T) 67.38(C)
109 30.6(C) 3.83(T) 444 24.04(C) 69.56(T)
435 0 27.59(C) 17 15.14(C) 3.81(T)
107 68.07(C) 65.9(T) 445 24.04(T) 69.56(T)
427 48.13(T) 8.03(C) 13 34(T) 41.06(T)
428 0 8.03(C) 455 63.22(T) 90.38(C)
110 48.13(T) 16.4(C) 456 63.22(T) 90.38(C)
101 44.6(T) 33.27(C) 18 0 16.27(C)
436 79.67(C) 37.55(T) 7 10.71(T) 12.97(C)
111 15.3(C) 3.83(T) 446 7.57(C) 105.3(T)
437 79.67(T) 37.55(T) 19 15.14(C) 3.81(T)
106 22.96(T) 8.55(T) 447 7.57(T) 105.3(T)
429 0.358(T) 36.62(C) 12 10.7(C) 13.34(C)
112 0 16.4(C) 457 63.21(T) 90.13(C)
430 0.358(C) 36.62(C) 20 0 16.27(C)
102 0.516(T) 19.3(T) 458 63.21(T) 90.14(C)
438 63.07(T) 29.58(T) 8 12.59(C) 41.43(T)
113 15.3(C) 3.83(T) 448 8.91(T) 69.07(T)
439 63.07(T) 29.58(T) 117 15.14(C) 3.81(T)
105 21.12(T) 48.79(C) 449 8.91(T) 69.07(T)
431 14.94(C) 7.91(T) 11 8.82(C) 67.75(C)
114 0 16.4(C) 459 60.54(T) 17.92(C)
432 14.94(T) 7.9(T) 118 0 16.27(C)
103 2.36(T) 71.88(T) 460 60.54(T) 17.92(C)
440 49.8(T) 51.5(C) 9 14.47(T) 95.84(T)
115 15.3(C) 3.83(T) 450 12.91(T) 39.13(C)
441 49.8(T) 51.5(C) 119 15.14(C) 3.81(T)
104 19.28(T) 106.14(C) 451 12.91(T) 39.13(C)
433 1.4(T) 125.54(T) 10 3.79(C) 122.16(C)
116 150.69(C) 183.32(T) 461 52.99(T) 126.27(T)
452 0 125.06(T) 120 158.97(C) 179.1(T)
5 100.11(T) 121.79(C) 470 0 126.27(T)
442 70.79(C) 38.15(C) 23 78.04(T) 99.53(C)
15 15.14(C) 3.81(T) 462 55.18(C) 57.1(C)
443 70.79(T) 38.15(C) 31 15.19(C) 3.82(T)
14 78.7(C) 95.47(T) 463 55.18(T) 57.1(C)
46
Table 4.2: Comparison Between Manual Calculation by Method of Joint and Autodesk Robot
Structural Analysis Professional 2020 provided forces under ULS (Continue)
Bar Manual Autodesk Bar Manual Autodesk

Number Calculation (kN) Number Calculation (kN)
(kN) (kN)
30 88.88(C) 65.97(T) 481 22.75(T) 63.59(T)
471 118.03(T) 17.7(T) 49 32.18(T) 43.53(T)
32 0 16.34(C) 493 59.86(T) 86.32(C)
472 118.03(T) 17.7(T) 54 0 15.43(C)
24 65.5(T) 42.52(C) 494 59.86(T) 86.32(C)
464 53.98(C) 15.69(T) 43 10.13(T) 20.31(C)
33 15.19(C) 3.82(T) 482 7.17(C) 105.11(T)
465 53.98(T) 15.69(T) 55 14.34(C) 3.71(T)
29 44.02(T) 13.7(T) 483 7.17(T) 105.11(T)
473 40.59(C) 18.84(C) 48 10.15(C) 4.71(C)
34 0 16.34(C) 495 59.87(T) 95.63(C)
474 40.59(T) 18.84(C) 56 0 15.43(C)
25 20.64(T) 14.49(T) 496 59.87(T) 95.63(C)
466 8.26(T) 15.98(T) 44 11.9(C) 32.26(T)
35 15.19(C) 3.82(T) 484 8.41(T) 82.19(T)
467 8.26(T) 15.98(T) 57 14.34(C) 3.71(T)
28 0.84(T) 38.58(C) 485 8.41(T) 82.19(T)
475 54.59(T) 17.13(T) 47 8.38(C) 52.95(C)
36 0 16.34(C) 497 57.38(T) 40.50(C)
476 54.59(T) 17.13(T) 58 0 15.43(C)
26 22.54(C) 71.51(T) 498 57.38(T) 40.5(C)
468 23.6(T) 56.25(C) 45 13.97(C) 84.82(T)
37 15.19(C) 3.82(T) 486 12.15(T) 5.16(C)
469 23.6(T) 56.25(C) 487 12.15(T) 5.16(C)
27 1.06(T) 90.86(C) 59 14.34(C) 3.71(T)
477 37.9(T) 125.61(T) 46 6.61(C) 101.19(C)
38 154.33(C) 169.21(T) 499 52.39(T) 79.07(T)
490 0 125.61(T) 60 108.51(C) 135.43(T)
41 94.79(T) 125.44(C) 500 0 79.07(T)
478 67.03(C) 42.38(C) 63 11.53(T) 70.1(C)
51 124.34(C) 3.71(T) 488 8.153(C) 26.274(C)
479 67.03(T) 42.38(C) 65 16.3(C) 3.97(T)
50 74.51(C) 91.77(T) 489 8.153(T) 26.27(C)
491 119.71(T) 12.57(C) 64 11.52(T) 36.32(T)
52 0 15.43(C) 501 0 6.33(T)
492 119.71(T) 12.58(C) 66 25.89(C) 23.39(C)
42 52.46(T) 72.87(C) - - -
480 22.75(C) 63.59(T) - - -
53 14.34(C) 3.71(T) - - -
47
Figure 4.1: Deformation Under Self-Weight of Bridge Truss (1)
Figure 4.2: Deformation Under Combination of All Dead Loads and Live Loads of Bridge
Truss (1)
48
Figure 4.3: Stresses Under Self-Weight of Bridge Truss (1)
Figure 4.4: Stresses Under Combination of All Dead Loads and Live Loads of Bridge Truss
(1)
49
Figure 4.5: Internal Forces Under Moving Loads at Left Part of Bridge Truss (1)
Figure 4.6: Internal Forces Under Moving Load at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (1)
50
Figure 4.7: Deformation Under Moving Load at Left Part of Bridge Truss (1)
Figure 4.8: Deformation Under Moving Load at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (1)
51
Figure 4.9: Stresses Under Moving Load at Left Part of Bridge Truss (1)
Figure 4.10: Stresses Under Moving Load at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (1)
Based on the data from Table 4.1 and 4.2, the internal forces of the manual
calculation by method of joints is huge different from the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis
Professional 2020. This is because of the negative moment continuity that cause by the
52
modelled column and connection part between each truss spans. The method of joint that we
learned would not give matching results. In order to prove that the manual calculation by
method of joint are correct, the last part of the bridge truss has been chosen and design with
same length, height and same load applied but the truss is design with the simply supported and
without connection part between each truss span. Figure 4.11 shown the design of the bridge
truss with simply supported and Figure 4.12 shown the internal forces of the bridge truss. Figure
4.13 and Figure 4.14 shown the results from the manual calculation. Table 4.3 shown the
comparison between the internal forces from manual calculation by method of joint and
Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020 provided forces. From the Table 4.3, the
results from the manual calculation is same as the results from the Autodesk. Therefore, it has
been proved that the manual calculation by the method of joint is correct, but due to the
modelled column and connection pert between each truss span, the answer for internal forces
is different with Autodesk.
In BS 5950-1-2000 2.5.2 Table 8(C), the allowable deformation for the bridge
truss must less than L/600. From the Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, the maximum deformation
under self-weight and combination of all dead loads and live loads are 2mm and 8mm. The
allowable deformation for the bridge truss in this case is (22400/600 = 37.33mm). The
maximum deflection is less than 37.33mm, so there are not failure occur by the deformation.
From the Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4, the maximum stresses are 14.45 MPa and 66.78 MPa.
Based on BS 5950-1-2000 4.7.5 Table 24(1), the maximum stresses in the structural steel S275
Grade must be less than 227 MPa in this section. Therefore, it is safe for the maximum stresses
of this bridge truss.
Form the Figure 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10, the moving loads such as
pedestrians only applied on one part of the bridge truss. This is because the moving loads that
in the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020 cannot apply to the bridge truss
that have a little curve of 5 degree up and down. All internal forces, deformation and stresses
become higher when moving from left to the middle. The maximum value of forces ,
deformation and stresses will take from the middle part. The maximum deformation and stresses
are 1mm and 4.44 MPa only. These values are below the allowable deformation and stresses
from BS Code.
53
After done all checking above, the demand and capacity ratio of the structural
steel must be checked. Based on BS 5950, the demand and capacity of structural steelwork must
be less than 1.0 to prevent failure occur. Figure 4.15 shown the demand and capacity ratio of
some structural steel with SHS 120 x 120 x 8 and SHS 100 x 100 x 8 under combination of all
dead loads and live loads (ULS). The unit for Lay and Lax are in cm. From the Figure 4.15, all
the steel section is less than 1.0 and it is shown “OK” with green colours by the Autodesk Robot
Structural Analysis Professional 2020.
Figure 4.11: Design of the Bridge Truss with Simply Supported
54
Figure 4.12: Internal Forces in Bridge Truss by Autodesk
55
Figure 4.13: Results from Manual Calculation
56
Figure 4.14: Results from Manual Calculation (Continued)
57
Table 4.3: Comparison between Internal Forces by Method of Joint and Autodesk Robot
Structural Analysis Professional 2020 provided forces in Bridge Truss with Simply Supported
Bar Number Manual Calculation (kN) Autodesk (kN)
102 27(C) 27(T)
126 0 0
100 11.76(T) 11.76(C)
124 8.13(C) 8.13(T)
103 17(C) 17(T)
125 8.13(T) 8.13(T)
101 11.76(T) 11.76(C)
127 0 0
104 27(C) 27(T)
58
Figure 4.15: Example of Some Demand and Capacity Ratio by Autodesk (1)
59
4.3 Second Analysis Result of SHS 100 x 100 x 8 and SHS 90 x 90 x 8
In the second analysis result, for the top chord and bottom chord, the steel
sections reduced cross section by us to SHS 100 x 100 x 8 to achieve the optimization objective.
For the diagonal and post, the SHS 90 x 90 x 8 have been used. The data for the internal forces
is same as the first analysis result, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2.The analysis for the internal forces
has based on the combination of all dead loads and live loads with safety factor of 1.4Gk +
1.6Qk . The combination of the loads is under the Ultimate Limit State (ULS).
Figure 4.16 and 4.17 shown the deformation under the self-weight of the bridge
truss and combination of all dead loads and live loads. For example, the self-weight of bridge
truss and slab self-weight as the dead loads. Then, the roof loadings, light loadings and fence
loadings as live loads. Figure 4.18 and 4.19 shown the stresses under combination of all dead
loads and live loads. Figure 4.20 and Figure 4.21 shown the internal forces under the moving
load such as the pedestrians. Figure 4.22 and Figure 4.23 shown the deformation under the
moving load. Figure 4.24 and Figure 4.25 shown the stresses under moving load.
60
Truss (2)
61
Figure 4.18:Stresses Under Self-Weight of Bridge Truss (2)
Figure 4.19*: Stresses Under Combination of All Dead Loads and Live Loads of Bridge Truss
(2)
62
Figure 4.21: Internal Forces Under Moving Loads at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (2)
63
Figure 4.22: Deformation Under Moving Loads at Left Part of Bridge Truss (2)
Figure 4.23: Deformation Under Moving Loads at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (2)
64
Figure 4.24: Stresses Under Moving Loads at Left Part of Bridge Truss (2)
Figure 4.25: Stresses Under Moving Loads at Middle Part of Bridge Truss (2)
65
The internal forces for second analysis result same as first analysis result, Table
4.1 and Table 4.2 but it is different from the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional
2020. This is because of the negative moment continuity that cause by the modelled column
and connection part between each truss spans. The method of joint that we learned would not
give matching results. From the Table 4.3, the results from the manual calculation is same as
the results from the Autodesk. Therefore, it has been proved that the manual calculation by the
method of joint is correct, but due to the modelled column and connection pert between each
truss span, the answer for internal forces is different with Autodesk.
maximum deflections, 2mm and 10mm are less than 37.33mm, so there is not failure occur by
the deformation. From the Figure 4.18 and Figure 4.19, the maximum stresses are 14.16 MPa
and 72.27 MPa. The normal stresses under combination of all loads increase due to the
decreasing of cross sections. Based on BS 5950-1-2000 4.7.5 Table 24(1), the maximum
stresses in the structural steel S275 Grade must be less than 212 MPa in this section. Therefore,
it is safe for the maximum stresses of this bridge truss because 72.27MPa < 212MPa.
are 1mm and 6.03 MPa only. These values are below the allowable deformation and stresses
from BS Code.
After done all checking above, the demand and capacity ratio of the structural
steel must be checked. Figure 4.26 shown the demand and capacity ratio of some structural steel
with SHS 100 x 100 x 8 and SHS 90 x 90 x 8 under combination of all dead loads and live loads
66
(ULS). The unit for Lay and Lax are in cm. From the Figure 4.26, the demand and capacity
ratio of SHS 100 x 100 x 8 and SHS 90 x 90 x 8 are less than 1.0 and it is shown “OK” with
green colours by the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020.
67
68
4.4 Third Analysis Result of SHS 100 x 100 x 6.3 and SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3
In the third analysis result, the thickness of steel sections reduced from 8mm to
6.3mm. For the top chord and bottom chord, the SHS 100 x 100 x 6.3 have been used to achieve
the optimization objective. For the diagonal and post, the SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3 have been used.
The data for the internal forces is same as the first analysis result, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. The
analysis for the internal forces has based on the combination of all dead loads and live loads
with safety factor of 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk . The combination of the loads is under the Ultimate Limit
State (ULS).
loadings as live loads. Figure 4.29 and 4.30 shown the stresses under combination of all dead
loads and live loads. Figure 4.31 and Figure 4.32 shown the internal forces under the moving
load such as the pedestrians. Figure 4.33 and Figure 4.34 shown the deformation under the
moving load. Figure 4.35 and Figure 4.36 shown the stresses under moving load.
69
Figure 4.27: Deformation Under Self-Weight of the Bridge Truss (3)
Truss (3)
70
Figure 4.29: Stresses Under Self Weight of Bridge Truss (3)
(3)
71
72
73
74
Internal forces of third analysis result also same as first and second analysis
result, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 but it is different from the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis
Professional 2020. This is because of the negative moment continuity that cause by the
modelled column and connection part between each truss spans. The method of joint that we
learned would not give matching results. From the Table 4.3, the results from the manual
calculation is same as the results from the Autodesk. Therefore, it has been proved that the
manual calculation by the method of joint is correct, but due to the modelled column and
connection pert between each truss span, the answer for internal forces is different with
Autodesk.
maximum deflections, 2mm and 11mm are less than 37.33mm. There is not failure occur by
the deformation. From the Figure 4.29 and Figure 4.30, the maximum stresses are 14.15 MPa
and 84.68 MPa. The normal stresses under combination of all loads increase due to the
decreasing of thickness of member. Based on BS 5950-1-2000 4.7.5 Table 24(1), the maximum
stresses in the structural steel S275 Grade must be less than 216 MPa in this section. Therefore,
it is safe for the maximum stresses of this bridge truss because 84.68 MPa < 216MPa.
are 2mm and 7.48 MPa. These values are higher than first and second analysis result, but the
values are below the allowable deformation and stresses from BS Code.
After done all checking above, the demand and capacity ratio of the SHS 100 x
100 x 6.3 and SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3 under combination of all dead loads and live loads (ULS) must
be checked to prevent failure. The unit for Lay and Lax are in cm. From the Figure 4.37, the
75
demand and capacity ratio of SHS 100 x 100 x 6.3 and SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3 are less than 1.0 and
it is shown “OK” with green colours by the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional
2020.
76
77
4.5 Fourth Analysis Result of Autodesk Optimized Section
In the fourth analysis result, all the structural steel section members were
optimized by the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020. Figure 4.38 shown
the optimized steel section that provided by the Autodesk. The optimization technology that
provide from the Autodesk have a cost benefits such as reduce material and reduce construction
cost. The optimized section that provided by the Autodesk also meets all the safety conditions
from the BS 5950-1:2000. For the top chord and bottom chord, SHS 60 x 60 x 3 have been used.
The SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6 have been used in the diagonal and post.
loadings as live loads. The same loads applied on the aluminium bridge truss to easier do make
a good comparison between structural steel and aluminium bridge truss. All the dimension of
the bridge truss and support reaction also same.
The analysis for the internal forces has based on the combination of all dead
loads and live loads with safety factor of 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk . The combination of the loads is under
the Ultimate Limit State (ULS). Internal forces of fourth analysis result also same as first
analysis result, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 but it is different from the Autodesk Robot Structural
Analysis Professional 2020. This is because of the negative moment continuity that cause by
the modelled column and connection part between each truss spans. The method of joint that
we learned would not give matching results From the Table 4.3, the results from the manual
calculation is same as the results from the Autodesk. Therefore, it has been proved that the
manual calculation by the method of joint is correct, but due to the modelled column and
connection pert between each truss span, the answer for internal forces is different with
Autodesk.
78
Figure 4.38: Optimized Steel Section by Autodesk
79
Truss (4)
80
From the Figure 4.39 and Figure 4.40, the maximum deformation under self-
weight and combination of all dead loads and live loads are 2mm and 26mm. In BS 5950-1-
2000 2.5.2 Table 8(C), the allowable deformation for the bridge truss must less than L/600. The
maximum deflections, 2mm and 26mm are less than 37.33mm. However, the maximum
deflection 26mm is very near to the allowable deflection, 37.33mm from BS Code. When the
truss service is performed for a long time, some failures may occur. But this optimized steel
section is provided by Autodesk, all safety conditions are followed by the BS 5950-1:2000.
Therefore, the optimized steel section can be used.
Since the maximum deflection is less than the allowable deflection, we continue
to analysis the aluminium bridge truss. The results of stress and moving loads will also be
helpful for discussion and comparison. Figure 4.41 and Figure 4.42 shown the stresses under
combination of all dead loads and live loads. Figure 4.43 and Figure 4.44 shown the internal
forces under the moving load such as the pedestrians. Figure 4.45 and Figure 4.46 shown the
deformation under the moving load. Figure 4.47 and Figure 4.48 shown the stresses under
moving load.
81
Figure 4.41: Stresses Under Self-Weight of Bridge Truss (4)
(4)
82
83
84
85
From the Figure 4.41 and Figure 4.42, the maximum stresses are 12.94 MPa and
161.54 MPa. The optimized section that provided by Autodesk have huge different normal
stresses with the optimized section that provided from us. Based on BS 5950-1-2000 4.7.5 Table
24(1), the maximum stresses in the structural steel S275 Grade must be less than 194 MPa in
this section. The maximum normal stresses, 161.54 MPa is very near to the allowable stresses,
194 MPa from BS Code. When the truss service is performed for a long time, some failures
may occur. But this optimized steel section is provided by Autodesk, all safety conditions are
followed by the BS 5950-1:2000. Therefore, it is still safe for the maximum stresses of this
aluminium bridge truss because 161.54MPa < 194MPa.
are 5mm and 25.36 MPa. The maximum deformation and stresses values are higher than first,
second and third analysis result. The shape of the deformation is a massive deformation. But
these values are below the limit of BS Code.
After done all checking above, the demand and capacity ratio of the SHS 60 x
60 x 3 and SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6 under combination of all dead loads and live loads (ULS) must
be checked to prevent failure. The unit for Lay and Lax are in cm. From the Figure 4.49, the
demand and capacity ratio of SHS 60 x 60 x 3 and SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6 are less than 1.0 and it is
shown “OK” with green colours by the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020.
86
Figure 4.49: Example of Some Demand and Capacity Ratio of Bridge Truss (4)
87
4.6 Discussion on First, Second, Third and Fourth Analysis Result
Based on all analysis results, the concludes all of the analysis result and come
out the graph of the relationship between the cross sections of member and deformation and
stresses under the combination of all dead loads and live loads. The Figure 4.50 and Figure 4.51
shown the relationship. The result in maximum deformation and stresses with different cross
sections under moving loads also state in the Figure 4.47 and Figure 4.48.
Relantionship between Deformation and Cross Section of Member

30
26
25
Deformation (mm)
20
15
11
10
10 8
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Cross Section from SHS 120 x 120 x 8 to SHS 60 x 60 x 3(mm)
Figure 4.50: Relationship between Deformation and Cross Section of Member Under
Combination of All Loads
88
Relantionship between Stresses and Cross Section of Member Under
Combination of All Loads
180
161.54
160
140
120
Stresses (MPa)
100 84.68
72.27
80 66.78
60
40
20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Cross Section from SHS 120 x 120 x 8 to SHS 60 x 60 x 3 (mm)
Figure 4.51: Relationship between Stresses and Cross Section of Member Under Combination
of All Loads
Relantionship between Maximum Deformation and Cross Section of

6
5
Maximum Deformation(mm)
3
2
2
1 1
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Figure 4.52: Relationship between Maximum Deformation and Cross Section of Member
Under Moving Loads
89
Relantionship between Maximum Stresses and Cross Section of
30
25.36
25
Mximum Stresses(MPa)
20
15
10 7.48
6.03
4.44
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Figure 4.53: Relationship between Maximum Stresses and Cross Section of Member Under
Moving Loads
Based on the Figure 4.50 and Figure 4.51, it is clearly shown that the
deformation and stresses increase when the cross sections are reduced from 120mm to 100mm
and thickness 8mm to 6.3mm. But all the maximum deformation and stresses of the bridge truss
are below the allowable deformation and stresses from BS 5950-1:2000. The maximum
deflection 26mm are less than allowable defection of 37.33mm and the maximum stresses
154.91 MPa are less the allowable stresses of 194 MPa for SHS 60 x 60 x 3 section. The
maximum deflection and stresses under moving loads also increase when the cross section
reduced. From the Figure 4.52 and Figure 4.53, the deformation and stresses have a huge
increase from the original section. But all the values are below the allowable deformation and
stresses from Bs 5950-1:2000. Therefore, the cross sections optimization technology that
provided from the Autodesk can be applied in this structural steel bridge truss.
From the researcher, Engr. Rehan H. Zuberi (PhD. Student), Prof. Zuo
Zhengxing, Dr. Long Kai, Li Wen, the results obtained from the research is shown from
topological optimization results, they can easily deduce that constant cross-section obtained
from moving load case and change the beam section from thicker to thinner beam section as
compared to corresponding case observed at static loads. From the results, it is shown that the
optimization technology by Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020 have
optimized the original section, SHS 120 x 120 x 8 to SHS 60 x 60 x 3. It is a huge change from
the original section. However, the maximum deformation and stresses are below the allowable
values from the BS 5950-1:2000. Therefore, the optimized section, SHS 60 x 60 x3 can be used.
90
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEDANTIONS
5.1 Conclusion
In this project, the objectives are to determine the internal forces, deformation
and stresses under safety factor of 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk with different cross sections (SHS 120 x 120
x 8, SHS 100 x 100 x 8, SHS 100 x 100 x 6.3, SHS 60 x 60 x 3 and others) and provide the
optimal solution. The objectives have been achieved and proved in this chapter. Based on the
literature review in Chapter 2, the reduction in the cross-section or thickness of square hollow
section will increase in the deflection and stresses under load case. Based on the result and
discussion in Chapter 4, the relationship of the cross-section is inversely proportional to
deflections or stresses under combination of all load and moving load. It shown that the result
is similar to the literature review in Chapter 2. The maximum deflections and stresses from the
results are less than the allowable deformation and stresses from the BS 5950-1:2000. The
demand ratio for the structural steel member also need to less than 1.0 to ensure safety. For
example, the maximum deformation from the results are 26 mm < 37.33 mm, maximum normal
stresses 161.54 MPa < 194 MPa and the maximum demand ratio 0.74 < 1.0. Thus, all the results
are below the allowable result from BS 5950-1:2000.
The optimal solutions for the square hollow section are optimized from SHS 120
x 120 x 8 to SHS 60 x 60 3 for top chord and bottom chord. The diagonals and posts are
optimized from SHS 100 x 100 x 8 to SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6. In the conclusion below, the different
percentage of internal forces, maximum deflection, maximum normal stresses and demand ratio
are shown for the original section to optimized section.
91
In the internal forces, the results of original section and optimized section are
the same. There are 0% change from the original section to optimized section. Table 4.1 and
4.2 shown the results of the internal forces. However, the results of manual calculation by
method of joint are huge different with the internal forces by Autodesk Robot Structural
Analysis 2020. This is because of the negative moment continuity that cause by the modelled
column and connection part between each truss spans. The method of joint that we learned
would not give matching results. Figure 4.11 shown the design of the last part simply supported
bridge truss with same length, same width, same load applied and without connection part
between each truss span. Table 4.3 shown the results of internal forces in simply supported
bridge truss by manual calculation and Autodesk. The internal forces of manual calculation are
100% same with the Autodesk. It has been proved that the manual calculation by the method
of joint is correct, but due to the modelled column and connection pert between each truss span,
the answer for internal forces is different with Autodesk.
In the maximum deformation under dead load or self-weight, the results from
the original section (Figure 4.1) are 2 mm which is same as the optimized section (Figure 4.16,
4.27 and 4.39). The change is 0% which mean that the self-weight of optimized sections has
only a little effect. The results of maximum deformation under all load (slab loading, light
loading, fence loading, roof loading and self-weight) are different from original section to
optimized section. Based on Figure 4.2, the maximum deformation of original section such as
SHS 120 x 120 x 8 (top and bottom chord) and SHS 100 x 100 x 8 (diagonals and posts) are 8
mm. Figure 4.17 of optimized section SHS 100 x 100 x 8 (top and bottom chord) and SHS 90
x 90 x 8 (diagonals and posts) are 10 mm which increase 20% from the original section. Figure
4.28 of optimized section SHS 100 x 100 x 6.3 (top and bottom chord) and SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3
(diagonals and posts) are 11 mm which increase 27% from the original section. Figure 4.40 of
optimized section by Autodesk provided SHS 60 x 60 x 3 (top and bottom chord) and SHS 70
x 70 x 3.6 (diagonals and posts) are 26 mm which increase 69% from the original section. The
deformation will increase when the cross-section reduces. In BS 5950-1-2000 2.5.2 Table 8(C),
the allowable deformation for the bridge truss must less than L/600. The allowable deformation
for the bridge truss is (22400/600 = 37.33mm). The maximum deformation from the Autodesk
provided section is 26 mm < 37.33 mm. There is not failure occur by the deformation in this
optimized section.
92
In the maximum stresses under combination of the load, the result from original
section to optimized section are increasing. Figure 4.4 shown the maximum stresses of original
section SHS 120 x 120 x 8 (top and bottom chord) and SHS 100 x 100 x 8 (diagonals and posts)
are 66.78 MPa. The maximum stress increases 7.6% when the section optimises to SHS 100 x
100 x 8 (top and bottom chord) and SHS 90 x 90 x 8 (diagonals and posts). The maximum
stresses increase 21% when the thickness reduce from 8 mm to 6.3 mm. The Autodesk provided
section are 59% higher than the original section. The maximum stresses will increase when the
cross-section reduces. Based on BS 5950-1-2000 4.7.5 Table 24(1), the maximum stresses in
the structural steel S275 Grade must be less than 194 MPa in the Autodesk provided section.
The maximum stresses are safe because 161.54 MPa < 194 MPa.
According to the results of the deformation under moving loads, the SHS 60 x
60 x 3 (top and bottom chord) and SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6 (diagonals and posts) that provided by
the Autodesk have the highest deformation, 5 mm. The deformation are 80% higher than the
original section, SHS 120 x 120 x 8 (top and bottom chord) and SHS 100 x 100 x 8 (diagonals
and posts). Figure 4.9, 4.10, 4.24, 4.25, 4.35, 4.36, 4.47 and 4.48 shown the results of maximum
stresses under moving loads are 8.7 MPa by optimized section of Autodesk. The maximum
stresses have 52% higher than the maximum stresses of original section. Based on BS 5950-1-
2000, the maximum deformation and stresses are below the allowance results. Therefore, the
maximum deformation and stresses are safe.
Based on BS 5950, the demand and capacity of structural steelwork must be less
than 1.0 to prevent failure occur. Figure 4.15, 4.26, 4.37 and 4.49 shown the demand ratio for
original section and optimized sections are less than 1.0. This means that the optimized section
can be used safety.
Furthermore, Figure 4.50, 4.51, 4.52, 4.53 shown the relationships of the cross-
section between the deformation and stresses. These relationships summarize all the data and
the results are within our expectations. It is similar to the results of the literature review in
Chapter 2. Reducing in cross-section will increase the maximum deformations and stresses.
From these results, the best optimal solution for the INTI bridge truss has been found. The area
of steel section can be optimized from 120 mm x 120 mm to 60 mm x 60 mm and the thickness
93
also can optimized from 8 mm to 3 mm. Thus, the optimized section meets our objectives and
expectations.
Moreover, the 8 mm thickness of original section, SHS 120 x 120 x 8 (top and
bottom chord) and SHS 100 x 100 x 8 (diagonals and posts) are based on the assumptions.
Basically, the steel square hollow section for bridge truss must be less than 10 mm. Therefore,
the thickness has been assumed to 8 mm. This assumption will affect the result of deformation
and stresses. The greater the thickness, the smaller the deflection and stresses.
In conclusion, the problem faced are not good at using Autodesk Robot
Structural Analysis Professional 2020. Some functions don’t know how to use. This problem
will affect the accuracy of the result.
5.2 Recommendation
The objectives in this project research are determine the optimal solution for the
INTI International University existing pedestrian’s walkway bridge truss by determine the
internal forces, deformation and stresses under various load effect with factor of safety. The BS
5950-1-2000 have been used to ensure the safety of optimized section.
The original steel section, SHS 120 x 120 x 8 (top and bottom chord) and SHS
100 x 100 x 8 (diagonals and posts) have been optimized to many section such as SHS 100 x
100 x 6.3, SHS 90 x 90 x 6.3, SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6, SHS 60 x 60 x 3 and others. The best optimal
solution for the bridge truss is SHS 60 x 60 x 3 (top and bottom chord) and SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6
(diagonals and posts). This optimal section has been provided by Autodesk Robot Structural
Analysis Professional 2020.
Based on BS 5950-1-2000 2.5.2 Table 8(C), the allowable deformation for the
bridge truss must less than L/600. The allowable deformation for the bridge truss is (22400/600
= 37.33mm). The maximum deformation of the SHS 60 x 60 x 3 (top and bottom chord) and
SHS 70 x 70 x 3.6 (diagonals and posts) are 26 mm. The maximum deformation, 26 mm <
94
37.33 mm. . Based on BS 5950-1-2000 4.7.5 Table 24(1), the maximum stresses in the structural
steel S275 Grade must be less than 194 MPa. The maximum stresses of this section are 161.54
MPa which less than 194 MPa. Thus, this section can be used safety and no failure occur.
In additional, the advantages of this optimization objectives are lowest weight

or highest performance, or a combination of these. The optimization technology also cost
effective and economical.
Moreover, the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2020 have a lot
of benefits. For example, improve design optimization through access to more performance
information, gain a strong understanding of a design’s performance, save time, analyse complex
loading scenarios, environments, and designs. Therefore, the Autodesk can provide the best
optimal solution.
In the nutshell, the cross-section optimization topology have been given a lot of
attention now. Optimization technology plays an important role in structural design, and its
purpose is to find the best solution from which designers or decision makers can get the most
benefits. Therefore, the optimized section SHS 60 x 60 x 3 (top and bottom chord) and SHS 70
x 70 x 3.6 (diagonals and posts) by Autodesk should be used.
95
REFERENCES
Jamilur Reza Choudhury and Ariful Hasnat, 2015, ‘Bridge Collapse Around The World:
Causes and Mechanisms’, paper presented at the University of Asia Pacific, 21-25
August 2015, Bangladesh
Ferments Lianto, Rudy Trisno and Sidhi Wiguna Teh, 2018, ‘The Truss Structure System’,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(11), 2460-2469
Jerome J. Connor and Susan Faraji, 2012, Fundamentals of Structural Engineering, 1st ed,
New York, Springer.
New York, Springer.
New York, Springer.
New York, Springer.
Fanny Griesmer, 102, ‘Modelling a Pratt Truss Bridge, accessed 28th December 2012,
Available from https://www.comsol.com/blogs/modeling-a-pratt-truss-bridge/.
Tabea Tietz, 2014, ‘Squire Whipple – The Father of the Iron Bridge’, accessed 16th
September 2014, Available from http://scihi.org/squire-whipple-the-father-of-the-
iron-bridge/.
The Maritime Executive, 2020, ‘Towboat Strikes St. Louis Historic Eads Bridge’, accessed
28th February 2020, Available from https://www.maritime-
executive.com/article/video-towboat-strikes-st-louis-historic-eads-bridge.
Akinloye Bukunmi Stephen, 2019, ‘Industrial Training Work Report’, accessed 30th June
2019 Available from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334672482_Industrial_training_work_report
/figures?lo=1.
Russell C. Hibbeler, 1999, Structural Analysis, 4th ed, United States of America, Prentice
Hall.
96
BS 648:1964, ‘Schedule of Unit Masses of Building Materials’.
BS 6399-1:1996, ‘Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed Loads’.
BS 6399-1:1996, ‘Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed Loads’.
BS 6399-2:1997, ‘Code of Practice for Wind Loads’.
BS 6399-2:1997, ‘Code of Practice for Wind Loads’.
Chanakya Arya, 1994, Design of Structural Elements, 2nd ed, USA, E & FN Spoon.
Rahul and Kaushik Kumar, 2014, ‘Design and Optimization of Portable Foot Bridge’, 12th
GLOBAL CONGRESS ON MANUFACTURING AND MANAGEMENT, GCMM
2014, 97(2014), 1041-1048.
BS 5950-1:2000, ‘Square Hollow Sections’.
BS 5950-1:2000, ‘Circular Hollow Sections’.
Pavol Lengvarský and J. Bocko, 2016, ‘The Static Analysis of the Truss’, American Journal
of Mechanical Engineering, 4(7), 440-4440.
Hall.
Hall.
Hall.
Hall.
Hall.
Hall.
Krishna Murari and Biswajit Acharya, 2016, ‘Optimization of Sectional Dimensions of
I-Section Flange Beams and Recommendations for IS 808: 1989’, Open Journal of
Civil Engineering, 2016(6), 235-313.
97
98

Computer Modelling and Analysis of An Existing Pedestrian PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computer Modelling and Analysis of An Existing Pedestrian PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Engineering and Quantity Surveying

COMPUTER MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF AN EXISTING PEDESTRIAN

Tong Chu Chin

Final Year Project

TONG CHU CHIN

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENT v-vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii-x

1.1 Background 1-2

1.2 Problem Statement 3

1.4 Scope of Study 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6-29

2.1 Background 5-9

2.2 Types of Bridge Truss 9

2.2.1 Pratt Truss 10

2.2.2 Howe Truss 10

2.2.3 Warren Truss 10

2.2.5 Fink Truss 11-12

2.3 Design Load 12-13

2.3.1 Dead Loads or Static Load 13-14

2.3.2 Live Load or Imposed Load 15-16

2.3.4 Impact Load 19

2.3.5 Factor of Safety 19-20

2.4 Optimization Technology 21

2.4.1 Cross-section Optimization 21-23

2.5 Analysis of Statically Determinate Trusses 24

2.5.1 Method of Joint 24-25

2.5.2 Method of Section 25-26

2.5.3 Zero-Force Members 26

2.6 Summary of Literature Review 27-29

3.2 Flow Chart 31

3.3 Program Modelling 32

3.5 Required Measurements of Bridge Truss 33

3.6 Actual Measurements for the Bridge Truss 33-34

3.7 Cross Section of Beam 34-35

3.8 Cross Section for Column 36-37

3.9 Material for the Beam 37

3.10 Assumption for the Design of Bridge Truss 37-38

3.11 Method of Joint 38-39

3.12 Method of Section 39

3.13 Factor of Safety (FoS) 39-40

3.14 Computer Testing Procedure 40

100 x 8 Steel Sections

3.14.2 Load Test of SHS 100 x 100 x 8 and SHS 90 x 90 x 8 40-41

3.14.4 Load Test of Autodesk Optimized Sections 41

3.15 Summary of Methodology 41-42

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 43-90

4.1 Introduction 43-44

4.5 Fourth Analysis Result of Autodesk Optimized Sections 78-87

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEDANTIONS 91-95

5.1 Conclusion 91-94

5.2 Recommendation 94-95

Table 2.1 Overall Factor of Safety 20

Pedestrian walkway bridge truss is a structure of combined elements such as

According to the research, a considerable amount of research is being conducted

Figure 1.1: Failure of Bridge Truss (Jamilur et al., 2015)

To achieve a successful project, the objective of the project should be:

1) Evaluate on possibility of material optimizes of the truss member.

This study will have a picture of INTI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

The aspects covered in this study:

4) Investigate the methods of joints and method of sections equations.